Talk:Democratic Socialists of America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia is a great resource. If people were honest and objective it would be a perfect one. Its credibility is more likely to be destroyed however, by the needless editorializing that I've seen in some listings, particularly those related to politics.

On this DSA listing, the information regarding specific members of the U.S. Congress who are members of the organization is just not correct. Bernie Sanders has never been a member of DSA; he will tell you that, they will tell you that. Dellums left DSA five years ago. Danny Davis's membership is only rumoured, and Major Owens is hardly notable for much of anything.

And putting in a line about what one political group thinks about another is hardly a NPOV, and really out of line. It's a bit like saying that the Republican Party feels that the Socialist Party USA are godless murdering Leninists who should all move to Cuba. That may in fact be what Republicans think about that organization, but that has nothing to do with the Socialist Party USA, and shouldn't be included in their listing either. If the Socialist Party USA wants to use their own listing or their own web site to comment on other groups, more power to them, but it's really sleazy to put your own propaganda in someone else's Wiki listings.

Don't make Wikipedia listings your own editorial column. That's what blogs are for, and anyone can have one these days.

August bebel

Surely a dispute between two groups deriving out of the old Socialist Party of America about the proper role of electoral politics is different from what Republicans think of SPUSA, and is more relevant to an article on one of the groups? john k 17:24, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It would be more relevant in a listing for the history of the Socialist Party of America itself. Going into each one of the listings for each one of the groups that sprouted off 31 years ago from what was at the time a pretty stodgy and dormant SP of A, and inserting what each thinks of the other, seems to me to be a bit odd, not to mention petty and counterproductive to the encyclopedic idea. It would be better for each group to have their position stated in their own listing. The issue in question here - electoral politics - is not the driving issue for DSA. Other groups - mostly not from the old party - are far more obsessed with DSA's non-electoral focus than DSA itself. So I'll try it another way: the relevance of including the Socialist Party USA's opinion of DSA's electoral position in DSA's listing might be similar to including the SPUSA's opinion of Greenpeace on their direct action strategies in the Greenpeace listing. The two orgs (DSA & SPUSA) are as different today as Catholics and Protestants, who also used to belong to the same group once upon a time. The third group in the mix (SDUSA) might as well have become Hindus, to extend the metaphor. So while it is fair to deal with what divides the three heirs to the SP of A in a historical piece, it's not fair on a site like this one to speak about either group today through the eyes of the other. As I said before, it's the kind of thing that if it runs rampant will make the whole Wikipedia less credible. August bebel 18:53, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

August,

Thank you for your original contribution, which added some valuable information. However, before you go around impugning other contributors' motives and making judgements about NPOV policy, please familiarize yourself with wikipedia policy and etiquette (you might especially want to take a look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Assume good faith).

As to the specific points of controversy here:

1) Thank you for clarifying the matter of the congressmen. However, the former membership, rumored membership, and semi-formal association of members of congress is worthy of inclusion in the article, assuming it's verifiable. Removing information from an article wholesale, without explanation, will almost always get reverted.

2) I added the sentence which you apparently find objectionable. I did not do so because I am a SP-USA member (in fact, I'm not), or because random SP-USA members' opinions of DSA are inherently worthy of inclusion (they're not). I did so because you removed information which was perfectly worthy of inclusion: that DSA's electoral strategy is controversial in democratic socialist circles (whether that's fair or not). Where there is significant controversy, it should be characterized fairly in the article, without taking sides. This is Wikipedia policy, which you'll see followed in plenty of article -- you're entitled to disagree with it, but it still must be followed.

RadicalSubversiv E 19:34, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Radical,

I owe you an apology for my own jump to conclusions. I guess what bothered me is the phrase "would prefer", which seems to suggest that what one specific group wants for another actually matters to the other. That is why I read it as partisan. My error.

Can I suggest that it might be more helpful to say something like "DSA's endorsements of Democratic candidates has been a matter of some controversy among both the right as well as the left. Other socialists in the United States feel that socialist organizations should support only explicitly socialist candidates, whereas right-wing groups have used DSA's support of progressive Democrats to try to red-bait the candidates themselves."

I'll come back to the members of Congress later. I appreciate the change, but it's still a bit awkward, and considering what I've mentioned above about red-baiting, you can see why I think it's important to be as accurate as possible on this, or omit it altogether.

August bebel 20:43, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The part about other socialists seems good, although perhaps "Other socialists, including the Socialist Party USA, feel that..." The part about right-wingers using it to red-bait is, I think POV, and should be described in a different fashion. john k 21:25, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I totally get everything said and think it was cool to see things resolved amicably. But my comment is that in the relatively arcane subject of Socialist politics in the US, there isn't much information except for the squabbling between the, what is it 12+? parties out there (I call it the Life of Brian syndrome). True it is hearsay, but if it is worded right like suggested above it might still perhaps be worthy of mention. The Democratic Party's posturing is also interesting. If they want to appeal to the moderate right, any mention of anything red, or even green would cause a knee jerk reaction. How to write this and conform to standards is a task I don't particularly envy though. Khirad 02:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have any evidence on the description of the DSA as the largest socialist organization in the US, or an estimate of its current membership? Rafaelgr 00:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Seeing none, I'm going to remove the "largest" phrase. Rafaelgr 16:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

DSA use the phrase "largest socialist organization" as a recruiting slogan; but like you, I'd be curious to see the actual figures. I imagine it would still be true, although if their 2005 convention report is to be believed, their membership has fallen by more than 50% from 1993 to 2005. (Shame.) SPUSA's membership has reportedly been rising, although the last I heard they were still at not much more than a thousand members. I wonder whether P&FP, the ISO or other Trotskyist formations would be in the same league, numbers-wise... QuartierLatin1968 23:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The ISO is (in my opinion as an ISO member with some friends in DSA) definitely in the same league, as are (probably) SPUSA and CPUSA, and perhaps Committees of Correspondence. Of course these groups have very different standards of membership, so a comparison wouldn't mean much even if numbers were available. I'd be astonished if Peace and Freedom were anywhere near the same size as any of these groups, unless you count people who are only registered voters. Rafaelgr 22:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Another item: Can anyone name any DSA members elected to office, or otherwise document their existence? Rafaelgr 01:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Party or a Position?

I've heard of this party. Why isn't it on the list of "political parties of the USA" page, when there are so many less significant left parties there? Could it be that this party isn't fielding candidates, or what?

It's not a political party, nor does it claim to be. RadicalSubversiv E 05:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The DSA is a political action committee and works within the DNC and/or Democratic Party. The only democratic socialist party is the Socialist Party of the United States of America which does not work with the DNC and likewise, another Leftist party is the Social Democratic Party of America which is geared more in line with the Socialist International and the Christian Socialist Movement. The slight difference is "revolution" (militant) verses "evolution " (peaceful and reforming). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.243.117.153 (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DSA and the democratic party

I'm going to try to expand on the DSA's relationship with and attitude towards the Democratic Party. I'm sure there will be some disputed points. Rafaelgr 01:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested to know it anyone can elaborate on DSA's decision to back Jackson in 88. I would also love it if we could improve the paragraph on prominent members; I think it mixes up people like Chomsky, who tends to sign up for things like this out of friendliness, with people who actually play a role in shaping the DSA, which I think includes Barbara Ehrenreich. Unfortunately I don't know enough about this to do much more. Rafaelgr 18:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)